From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brock v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1998
256 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 14, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the complaint and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court's denial of the branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to amend their complaint was an improvident exercise of its discretion, inasmuch as there is no indication of delay or prejudice, and there may be merit to the proposed cause of action ( see, Noanjo Clothing v. L M Kids Fashion, 207 A.D.2d 436).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.

Miller, J.P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brock v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1998
256 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Brock v. Brock

Case Details

Full title:JACKIE BROCK et al., Appellants, v. MILTON BROCK et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 14, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 622

Citing Cases

Eagle Ins. Co. v. Queens Tunnel Ser. Station

tion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. Although the plaintiff did…

Chung v. Farberov

We agree with the plaintiffs that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its…